Bhabhichhan Ram @ Bhabhighan Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26259 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2023 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East Champaran ====================================================== BHABHICHHAN RAM @ BHABHIGHAN RAM Son of Hari Kishan Ram R/o Village - Majuraha, P.S.- Raghunathpur (Turkulia), District - East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rakesh Kumar No.1, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 13-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

All the F.I.R. named accused persons including this petitioner who is husband of the deceased, in furtherance of the common intention are said to have committed murder of the daughter of the informant after assaulting.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. No such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The allegation

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26259 of 2023(2) dt.13-07-2023 2/2 levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. Petitioner has no concern with the death of the deceased as at the time of occurrence, he was in Karnataka. It is further submitted that the deceased Sona Devi solemnized her second marriage with this petitioner. Earlier an F.I.R. was also lodged by first husband of the deceased, namely, Satrudhan Paswan against the petitioner and others. Petitioner has two criminal antecedents as mentioned in para-3 of this application. Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner is serious in nature, hence he does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of case, as petitioner is husband of the deceased, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T